Dr. Kory just bared it all on Joe Rogan. But there’s more from this world famous doctor…
What tips can increase your odds of surviving your next trip to the hospital? And will Vitamin C be the next banned topic? Get 40 minutes here, then come to our site www.PeakProsperity.com for the rest.
Dr. Pierre Kory is an ICU and lung specialist who is an expert on the use of the drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist, visiting fellow at Princeton, host of the DarkHorse podcast, and co-author (with his wife, Heather Heying) of the forthcoming “A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century.”
Iran has commemorated the 33rd anniversary of the downing of its passenger aircraft by a US Navy guided-missile cruiser over the Persian Gulf, which killed 290 people.
During a memorial ceremony on Saturday, officials from Iran’s southern Hormozgan province and the families of the tragedy’s victims, who were aboard a vessel, tossed flowers into the waters near the Strait of Hormuz and Hengam Island.
Chanting slogans such as “Down with the US” and “Down with Israel,” the participants condemned the inhumane US war crime.
In Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani denounced the cowardly US targeting of the passenger plane as “a great, horrible and unacceptable crime.”
“In the incident, 290 people on board the plane were martyred. Unfortunately, the US administration has not formally apologized for the crime and failed to take any significant measure in this regard. It has instead commended the cruiser’s commander,” he said Saturday.
“We hope that the US government will recognize that a great crime was committed in the Persian Gulf in 1988. All the freedom-seekers of the world always urge the US to take necessary measures to apologize and compensate and explain to the people why it has acclaimed the murderer and the criminal responsible for this great crime.”
On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes fired missiles at an Iran Air Airbus A300B2 which was flying over the Hormuz Strait from the port city of Bandar Abbas to Dubai, carrying 274 passengers and 16 crew members.
Following the attack, the plane disintegrated and crashed into the Persian Gulf waters, killing all 290 on board, among them 66 children.
US officials claimed that the USS Vincennes had mistaken Iran Air Flight 655 for a warplane. This is while the warship was equipped with highly sophisticated radar systems and electronic battle gear at the time of the attack.
In 1990, the captain of the cruiser, William C. Rogers, was cleared of any wrongdoing, and was even awarded America’s Legion of Merit medal by then US president George Bush for his “outstanding service” during operations in the Persian Gulf.
On 30 January 1972 the British Army’s Parachute Regiment shot dead 13 unarmed Catholic civil rights marchers in Londonderry. The incident, known as Bloody Sunday, became a recruitment tool for the Provisional IRA who were determined to kick British troops out of Ulster.
Two retired British Army soldiers have been told they will not face trial for murder over incidents during The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
More than 3,600 people suffered violent deaths during The Troubles – 30 years of sectarian strife in Northern Ireland, which was ended by the Good Friday Agreement.
Soldier F – believed to be a former member of the Parachute Regiment – was awaiting trial over the deaths of James Wray and William McKinney on Bloody Sunday in Londonderry.
Soldier B was facing a murder trial in relation to Daniel Hegarty, 15, who was shot in the head in Derry in July 1972.
The Public Prosecution Service reviewed both cases after another trial collapsed earlier this year.
In that case Soldiers A and C were acquitted of murdering IRA member Joe McCann after a court ruled statements they made were inadmissible.
The PPS announced on Friday, 2 July, that in view of that ruling and the similarity of the evidence against Soldiers F and B “there was no longer a reasonable prospect of key evidence in proceedings against Soldier F and Soldier B being ruled admissible.”
The decision was greeted with anger by families of the Bloody Sunday victims, who said they would seek a judicial review.
John Kelly, whose brother Michael died on Bloody Sunday, said: “It’s a day of devastation but we’re not going to give up. The fight for justice goes on.”
Soldier F had been the only person charged in relation to Bloody Sunday. The PPS had already decided there was insufficient evidence to charge 16 other former soldiers.
The British government announced in May it would introduce legislation to give greater protection to former soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland.
That followed the resignation of defence minister Johnny Mercer, who quit in disgust at the treatment of British Army veterans who had served in Northern Ireland.
I WOULD like to describe the last 16 months from the point of view of a critical care nurse; I also did some work as a community nurse last year. My views differ from those of most NHS workers I come into contact with.
Community nursing was already a disaster. Nurses get lists of up to 30 visits per nine-hour shift, with more coming in hourly. No staff. Constant stress. But then came the ‘pandemic’, if that’s what it was, the peak of which was April 8, 2020.
Once the pandemic was declared all but essential visits stopped. Families took over wound care, B12 injections ceased, carers took on basic nursing roles to keep district nurses out of care homes, and so on.
Swathes of staff were redeployed to the district nurse teams, and spent most of the time in base. Several cried for much of their stay.
Early on most nurses accepted the situation but as months passed the mood changed and they wanted to get back out there, particularly as GPs had all but deserted their patients. If this was a battle, the GPs turned and ran.
Care home fax machines spewed out DNACPR [do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation] notices and statements of intent for all residents whether ill or not, fit or not. (A statement of intent is a form completed by a GP that states a death is expected, and if it occurs outside surgery hours the doctor will issue a death certificate within the next 14 days. It also removes the requirement of contacting the police. This statement and DNACPRs do not necessarily go hand in hand but often do.)
A carer could now ring a GP and say that a resident had become unwell or was deteriorating and end of life (EOL) drugs would appear. The GP would not visit and assess, and unqualified carers would declare a resident ‘Nil by Mouth’ and for palliative care. When a nurse finally got to see the resident he or she may have been starved for days and was very grateful when the carer was ordered to give nourishment and fluids.
Carers are not nurses but they can have dubious intent just like some nurses we can recall. When family are not allowed in for months on end, who’s to know?
GPs began working from home, or from their cars parked in their surgery car park. They would refuse to enter care homes to ‘protect their family’, as one declared.
There was even an attempt to verify a death with a carer over the phone. The doctor must have been terrified when the manager stepped in and demanded he attend.
Cowards. GPs were not brave. One hoped they would lead the charge in the battle on the home front, but not so.
Then the dying began.
Regular ‘customers’ began to die, but not of Covid. More and more calls would come in informing us that ‘Betty’ had died, then ‘Ronnie’, then ‘Frank’ . . . all long-term patients. Loneliness was killing them.
We knew it. These people had gone from being part of a community: nurses, doctors, physios, family, to suddenly seeing no one.
Other patients died ‘with’ Covid, not many ‘from’ it.
No prophylactic medications or treatment was ever considered to my knowledge.
Comically, nurses were instructed to socially distance from each other and in houses/care homes. Yeah, right!
Not possible.
Also, while GPs hid and quivered, we saw patients whilst having no PPE.
It seems now that the NHS is nothing more than thousands of people indulging in cosplay (dressing up as their favourite characters from film or TV) mistaken for actual healthcare workers who, when asked to actually advocate for patients, turned out to be nothing more than Mr Benn – just wearing fancy dress.
We were instructed by the PM last year to prepare for the worst: every family would lose a member, get used to the daily sight of funeral cars, NHS prepare for the ‘Wave’.
I never saw this. Sure it was a bad few months but not exactly the movie Contagion. Some staff were so pumped they almost appeared disappointed when their job became easier.
Whilst some healthcare professionals have worked hard throughout, even above and beyond, almost all have bought into the government line and applied no critical thinking or done any research.
This has been the great disappointment. The cognitive dissonance is startling.
All have had the vax but still agree with anti-social distancing. Still agree with masks. Still agree with lockdowns. But get angry and upset at patients dying of loneliness.
A vaxxed colleague returned from isolating and said I should have the jab.
‘If it’s not a vaccine and just dampens symptoms why do I need it?’
‘So you don’t spread it.’
‘But apparently I would still be able to spread it. You’d just be ill not dead. I can spread it with or without the jab. It’s only me at risk.’
‘What?’
‘You’re young with no comorbidities, why do you need it?’
Shrug.
‘How does it work?’
Shrug.
It’s the same in my trust’s hospital where nurses and doctors care greatly about their patients but clearly cannot extrapolate that responsibility outwards beyond the hospital doors.
If you are critically ill, nurses and doctors can be ace. Need to fight a tyrannical dictatorship? Hmm, not so ace.
It’s a big ask I know but now’s the time. Maybe years of being bullied (that’s how the NHS manages its staff) has crippled most people.
Instead nurses, physios and others are signing up for extra pennies by giving injections of a vaccine they know nothing about.
And doctors. This is the shocker. Turns out they’re either not that clever, couldn’t care less or are corrupt. In other words, no different from anyone else. Except when given positions of real power. Then they can be dangerous. They must see the lies and yet the ones I work with tell everyone to get jabbed, wear a mask etc.
The NHS should never have this power. When someone claims to know what’s best for you, run!
I love nurses and am saddened that they have failed the test of their lifetime. Very few are cowards, though, just blind, unlike GPs, who are cowards first and foremost.
The NHS is now a religious body with its members needing guidance from above.
Neither medicine or religion should run a country.
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_…
– alternatively join up with my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IvorCummins
PIERS Corbyn is a well-known committed campaigner in the fight to stop the New Normal / New World Order / World Economic Forum being imposed on us all. He’s also a physicist, astro-physicist, long-range weather forecaster and former councillor.
Daniel Miller: You’ve been campaigning against the lockdowns and related matters since the very beginning. When did you first realise the pandemic narrative was a deliberate lie?
Piers Corbyn: About a week. I was always wary of these things because of the climate issue and I looked into what was happening and I understood these lockdowns were about control. I organised a few demonstrations in Glastonbury town centre and got back to London and met others (around May 9, 2020) who were attempting to do things in London. But things developed quite slowly at first, before we had a big breakthrough in August, getting 50,000 people to Trafalgar Square.
DM: The launch of the pandemic narrative was obviously very shocking and confusing . . .
PC: It was cleverly done. They had all corners covered.
DM: Do you feel you have a good theoretical understanding of the forces driving it forward?
PC: I think so. There are different interest groups coming together to make this and there could be splits between them. The Chinese want to carry on building their economy, and world domination in due course. Wall Street and the mega corporations want to defend their rate of profit. And at the same time, there’s the depopulation agenda of Bill Gates and others. I don’t think the big pharmaceutical companies want to simply depopulate everybody, they want to sell more vaccines. But Gates and others do want to reduce world population. They openly talk about that.
DM: There seems to be a strong connection with the green agenda with what used to be calling global warming and now is called climate change.
PC: Yes, that is their underlying religion, if you like . . . it’s an ideology that justifies anything that they want to do.
DM: This ideology is focused specifically on carbon emissions. It isn’t a holistic concern with the environment but only with this metric. In fact the green revolution is going to lead to massive environmental destruction, because they going to need to mine huge quantities of raw materials to create the new green infrastructure. But as you say, the climate change narrative is clearly useful from the point of view of centralising power. It means that governments can regulate in a way that will enable them to expand their control over society and the economy, in partnership with corporations. And this is also the point of the pandemic narrative.
PC: All governments love a crisis, and this one is a fantastic crisis for the governments of the world. And countries in Africa which have stood out against of course have found their Presidents murdered, in Tanzania and Burundi.
DM: One wonders who is handling that side of the operation.
PC: Yes, who is it? I haven’t seen any attempt to determine that.
DM: There are parts of America now which are much more clearly opposed, in particular in Florida. For whatever reason DeSantis was able to take that position, at least for now. In Britain on the other hand they seem very firmly in control, not only of the government, but also the parliamentary opposition led officially by Sir Keir Starmer, who seems to have been been ordered to support the government in whatever they decide to do.
PC: That’s right, and they even call for stronger measures. What is Starmer all about? I think he’s a hyper-globalist and has been supporting this agenda for a long time. I first met him years ago in a Red-Green alliance meeting in Camden, and he just waffled, he made no sense at all.
DM: Beyond Starmer, the wider Left hasn’t offered any opposition. It seems to me they’ve been co-opted. You see this in the United States where ‘Leftism’ became the ideology of the professional managerial class. It evacuated the worker dimension, and shifted to policing cultural issues.
PC: Hate speech and identity politics have destroyed the Left, and I think it’s deliberate. Because class analysis is now completely absent, which is why American workers were supporting Trump. When that began to happen I was quite bemused. But it makes sense because the Democratic Party is now just serving Wall Street interests . . .
DM: And Silicon Valley interests, and military industrial interests . . .
PC: And anything goes. The idea that a Leftist party can support the indiscriminate bombing and destruction of a country like Libya is just unbelievable, but that’s what they did.
DM: Some see the current political climate as an expression of the triumph of Leftism, or some form of Marxism. On the other hand, the Marxism now taught in universities or advanced in Leftist media appears to have been modified to support Democratic Party interests, and the people still committed to a more classical Marxist analysis are sidelined and repressed. This occurs from the Left, which is concerned with disciplining activism and channeling it into directions that create divisions and antagonism.
PC: The question must be, with respect to the Left, what percentage of activity is actually instigated by infiltrators and police agents.
DM: There almost seems to be a natural law of infiltration where eventually you reach a point where the Chief of Police is also the Head of the Anarchists . . .
PC: Yes!
DM: I want to ask you about your own background. Many people know you as Jeremy Corbyn’s brother, but your training is in meteorology, and you’ve been an activist for a long time.
PC: Yes, I’m a physicist, a theoretical physicist and astrophysicist, and I run a long range weather forecasting operation which sells forecasts to farmers, commodity traders, the energy industry and others, and has been quite successful. As for my brother, I’m older than him for a start. And I was better known around the world than he was until he started to attempt to be the leader of the Labour Party. He was always a member of the Labour Party, whereas I was in groups more involved in direct action. He was always more involved with the trade unions. But we worked together in the miners’ strike for example, where there was a lot of direct action, and he was coming from a trade union point of view. But at the start of his leadership campaign I said to him, you should make it clear that the other candidates are ‘Tory light’ and you’re different. And he said, that’s right, and that’s what he did, and that succeeded. And it’s true, because he does have a different perspective from the others. But he failed at the last hurdle because he was forced into a complete muddle over Brexit. And that was really the end of his great story at the upper levels of the Labour Party, although he still has a very important following.
DM: Your brother’s silence in the last eighteen months has been quite noticeable.
PC: No, he’s acquiesced basically and made minor comments . . . A lot of people in the anti-lockdown movement were, and some of them still are, supporters of Jeremy, and they come up to me in demonstrations and say, Piers, we supported your brother, where is he? Does he believe in all this? And I tell them, well, he’s a prisoner of the trade unions. And you’ve seen what’s happened. The authorities have been very clever. They thought about it a long time ahead, how to control the Labour movement, and because the Labour movement in Britain, all Labour movements, but especially Britain, is what I would call ‘economistic’. They don’t think very politically, they just think, where’s the money coming from? Anybody’s who has done any analysis, and Jeremy should have done this too, should have realised that this is the slow death of British industry, and those jobs will be destroyed. But they are just not facing up to it.
DM: The future of public services in Britain looks bleak. It seems that the government’s plan is to destroy them, and then package the market to corporations like Microsoft. And this is how the post-automation underclass is going to be managed in the future, with digital communications, UBI [universal basic income] and pharmaceutical interventions to ensure compliance.
PC: Yes, total privatisation. You can see that people are going to be asked to defend the NHS by people like Starmer and my brother, and they are going to reply, ‘What are we defending? The NHS has been failing to help people with cancer, injecting people with a lethal vaccine, there’s been a suppression of treatment, what are we defending?’
DM: From a Machiavellian perspective I suppose you have to hand it to them, because the government has in effect destroyed the NHS while repeating all the time we have to save it. Meanwhile they are making it as difficult as possible to have a good experience in schools. Here at least there is a possible path which might actually be quite positive, from the point of view of a more decentralised education system. But only for some.
PC: A lot of parents are actually taking their children out. And that’s interesting because if you get a high percentage of parents who take their children out and home-school I wonder where that will go, because you have private enterprises that will pop up and say we can look after your kids and have a private independent schools then the whole thing will become privatised.
DM: What do you think is politically the path forward for people who want to resist what’s happening?
PC: The main way to stop this is not begging the government; we do actually have to break their impositions and if we don’t break them we’re going to lose. People have to go to work when they’re not supposed to, they’ve got to rip down all the signs. If people defy in sufficient numbers the whole agenda of the other side becomes irrelevant because people will be working, and will be having an economy, and so forth. What happens then, I don’t know. Formally the main decisions are made in Parliament even if Johnson and others are being told what to do. So we’re building a party in order to compete on the level but of course we’re tiny compared to existing forces. Politically the key issues now are accountability and democracy versus globalist diktats, and the Left and Right issues are really a diversion. The way forward has to be massive grassroots resistance, physical, legal resistance, and stopping the implementation of the New World Order. This also requires political organisation which is why we set up Let London Live. The primary thing is that we have to be a movement and build a movement and that’s what we’re doing.
DM: The vaccine passports is now clearly the aim that they’re trying to pursue.
PC: Yes, the vaccine seems to be at the centre of their strategy. Now what is the vaccine programme about? It’s not about public health. It is about control, mental control, ideological control, and they do want to kill people, I have no doubt about that. I think a lot of people will die. The powers that be are desperate now to rush out more vaccines, and to vaccinate children, before people realise what’s going on.
DM: Already the casualties from the new experimental vaccines are unprecedented compared with other vaccination programmes.
PC: Yes, in America more people have died from this vaccine than have died from all of the other vaccines in the USA in the past.
DM: Probably one should be generous to their position intellectually, as it’s unusual for people to self-consciously pursue evil. People want to believe that what they’re doing is necessary. What they seem to believe in is the rational, scientific management of global populations. You see this already with the formation of the Fabian Society in the nineteenth century, which is still very active, and later with people like Julian Huxley, H G Wells and others. A lot of this seems to have been in the works for a long time and suddenly switched on. Evidently not everybody knows all the steps, but only some.
PC: That’s right.
DM: It is very difficult to speak to many of our contemporaries about this matter. It seems like there is a kind of mental block . . .
PC: Exactly, it’s difficult to believe they want to kill us. But I’ve come to the conclusion that actually they do, they really are trying to kill a lot of the population. We need to have a principled united front against all these measures. And the vaccines have to be stopped altogether.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has rejected a case brought by the widow and daughter of late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat requesting it reopen an investigation into his 2004 death.
After unsuccessful lawsuits in French courts, Suha and Zahwa Arafat filed a criminal complaint to the ECHR in 2017 claiming the former Palestinian Authority (PA), PLO and Fatah president had been the victim of premeditated murder.
However, in a ruling issued yesterday, the ECHR said there had been no infringement of the right to a fair hearing and the complaint was “manifestly ill-founded”.
The court unanimously declared the complaint inadmissible, according to the Guardian.
Three judges said that after reviewing the case, “at all stages of the proceedings, the applicants, assisted by their lawyers, had been able to exercise their rights effectively”.
“Judges did not appear to have reached arbitrary conclusions based on the facts before them and their interpretation of the evidence in the file or the applicable law had not been unreasonable,” they added.
In 2015, French judges closed an investigation into claims Arafat was murdered, without bringing any charges. The French court of appeal upheld the dismissal of the case, leading the former leader’s family to take their case to the ECHR.
The couple married secretly in Tunisia in 1990, when Suha was 27 and Arafat 61. Their daughter Zahwa was born five years later.
France’s junior defense minister Genevieve Darrieussecq has denied her country engaged in a “state cover-up” to conceal the extent of the impact of nuclear tests conducted by the country in the Pacific between 1966 and 1996.
Speaking following the conclusion of a two-day roundtable meeting, Darrieussecq declared that “there was no state cover-up,” rejecting allegations France sought to conceal the extent of the fallout from the nuclear tests, and ruling out any official apology.
The event had been arranged by France’s President Emmanuel Macron to confront the legacy of the 193 nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls in the Pacific Ocean, between 1966 and 1996. The sites remain inaccessible to this day and only 63 civilians have received compensation for being exposed to radiation from the tests.
Earlier this year, after examining thousands of declassified documents about the nuclear tests, an investigation by media outlet Disclose claimed that “French authorities have concealed the true impact of nuclear testing.”
Macron personally attended the meeting on Thursday but he did not issue a public statement about the event or the allegations around France’s actions.
Edouard Fritch, the president of French Polynesia, expressed disappointment at the reluctance of Paris officials to make amends for the nuclear tests or to acknowledge the full scale of the impact. “We felt that the president of the republic had a real desire to turn this painful page for all of us, with the resources that will need to be put in place in the future, so that Polynesians can rebuild the faith that we have always had in France,” Fritch said, after the two-day event.
Previously, France has accepted that the tests did have some “impact,” with then-president Francois Hollande recognizing the effect it had on the health of residents and the regional environment. However, he defended the decision to conduct the tests, claiming “France would not have nuclear weapons and therefore would not have a nuclear deterrent” without them.
Ten Days ago the The Palestinian Authority rejected 90,000 vaccine doses from Israel because they were ‘almost expired.’ Earlier that day, Israel announced that it would transfer up to 1.4 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine to the Palestinian territory. But almost as soon as the first 90,000 doses arrived to Ramallah, the PA said it would send them back as they were about to become dated.
But Israel didn’t give up. It may have found an easier customer for its nearly expired vaccines.
The N12 news item reveals that “the (Israeli) Ministry of Health fears the loss of hundreds of thousands of doses has devised a creative solution. Britain may receive a million vaccines as early as next week, and in return – will deliver to Israel the next shipment it receives from Pfizer in September.” The Israeli news item also points out that the Israeli Pfizer doses will expire as soon as next Saturday.
If you wonder why Israel is in such a panic situation regarding its left over vaccines, the following graph of Israeli vaccine distribution may provide the answer.
The graph reveals that since late March Israelis have lost interest in vaccination. About 40% of the Israelis are not vaccinated and do not show any signs of enthusiasm about inoculation. The graph also reveals that a solid 4% of the Israelis who took the first Pfizer dose were reluctant to take the second one. This may be due to the Israeli growing awareness of severe adverse reactions to the vaccines as well as the intense work of brave Israeli dissenters.
One may wonder, however, who in the British government is negotiating this kind of a ‘deal’ and who exactly in the NHS is going to vaccinate Brits with doses that were rejected by the Palestinian authority due to their expiration date.
YouTube censored a U.S. Senate committee hearing, doctors, journalists, and a U.S. Senator, for discussing evidence suggesting a cheap and widely available drug may help prevent and treat a deadly disease in the middle of a pandemic.
New research published in JAMA(Journal of the American Medical Association) has found that wearing a face mask causes children to inhale dangerous levels of carbon dioxide that becomes trapped behind the mask.
The peer-reviewed research letter from Dr Harald Walach and colleagues found that the air masked children inhaled contained more than six times the legal safe limit set down for closed rooms by the German Federal Environmental Office. The safe limit is 0.2% while the air the masked children inhaled was over 1.3% carbon dioxide.
The effect was worse for younger children, with one seven year-old child inhaling air with 2.5% carbon dioxide, over 12 times the safe limit.
The study looked at two types of mask, FFP2 masks and surgical masks, and found no significant difference between the two.
The authors explained that this alarming result likely explains the complaints from children who wear face masks for long periods.
Most of the complaints reported by children can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air. This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time. This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children.
This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia. A recent review concluded that there was ample evidence for adverse effects of wearing such masks. We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.
With face masks shown to have little to no impact in reducing infection or transmission, this suggests the policy is all pain and no gain and should be abandoned without delay.
A member of the Israeli Knesset, Yitzhak Pindrus, is accused of inciting genocide after calling for the killing of people in mixed marriages. Pindrus belongs to the United Torah Judaism, an ultra-Orthodox party that believes in a homogenous Jewish state. The party won seven seats in Israel’s fourth general election in under two years which was held in March.
United Torah Judaism is part of the right-wing opposition camp headed by ousted Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s premier for the past 12 years.
Speaking about Jews that marry non-Jews, Pindrus called for the killing of what he called “people who contribute to miscegenatio ben de o siz merhaban.” He is said to have invoked a Biblical story about the murder of a Jewish man and non-Jewish woman while they were making love by lancing a spear through their engaged sexual organs.
Pindrus’ comments, which were made within the Israeli Knesset itself, was shared on social media by David Sheen, an Israeli journalist. A caption of his speech shows the 49-year-old calling for the murder of “people who cause assimilation” while looking directly at Mansour Abbas, head of the United Arab List party that joined the fragile coalition which ousted Netanyahu. It’s not clear if the call for the murder of Jews that intermarry non-Jews is a symbolic reference to the coalition led by far-right nationalist Naftali Bennett.
Leading advocates of Israel are often seen issuing stark warnings against intermarriage. While many religious groups and cultures look upon mixed marriages disapprovingly, elected officials rarely entertain the issue considering it to be a parochial matter. However, in Israel, where non-Jews are seen as a demographic threat, inter-marriage is a highly political issue.
Last year, prominent member of one of American Jewish Committee, one of the US’ most active pro-Israel advocacy group, said that marriage between Jews and non-Jews is a “tragedy” for the occupation state because it presents a “crisis” for the core of political support for the Zionist state.
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 